1 / 23

METRO POLITICS: The Future of Local Government

METRO POLITICS: The Future of Local Government. GOVERNMENT or GOVERNANCE OF URBAN REGIONS AVERAGE MSA/CMSA: 90-100 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. 9 COUNTIES – plus Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin? 101 CITIES 721 SPECIAL DISTRICTS

olathe
Télécharger la présentation

METRO POLITICS: The Future of Local Government

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. METRO POLITICS: The Future of Local Government • GOVERNMENT or GOVERNANCE OF URBAN REGIONS • AVERAGE MSA/CMSA: 90-100 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

  2. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA • 9 COUNTIES – plus Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin? • 101 CITIES • 721 SPECIAL DISTRICTS • 200 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

  3. METROPOLITAN FRAGMENTATION BENEFITS? PUBLIC CHOICE theory: • Individuals choose service and tax levels they want by deciding where to live • Many smaller governments= more competition = better, more efficient services • Enhances sense of community • Smaller local governments= more accessible

  4. REGIONAL ISSUES • TRANSPORTATION • AIRPORTS • AIR QUALITY • WATER QUALITY • WASTE DISPOSAL • HOUSING • JOBS • ORGANIZED CRIME • GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  5. PROBLEMS WITH FRAGMENTED GOVERNANCE • SEPARATION OF NEEDS AND RESOURCES • ECONOMIES OF SCALE/ INEFFICIENCY • EXTERNALITIES • (DESTRUCTIVE) COMPETITION • LACK OF COORDINATION & ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS/SOLUTIONS

  6. SOLUTIONS TO REGIONAL FRAGMENTATION • ANNEXATION • CONSOLIDATION • CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES • COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT (COGS) • SPECIAL DISTRICTS • CONSOLIDATED SPECIAL DISTRICTS (Portland, Minneapolis)

  7. ANNEXATION • Cities absorbing adjacent land • Common in 1800’s • Suburban opposition resulted in incorporations of suburbs in 20th century halt to annexation • Highly constrained today Texas: still gives cities power to annex – e.g., Houston

  8. CITY-COUNTY CONSOLIDATION • Unification of city and county to single entity • E.g., San Francisco, NYC, Denver, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Lousville • Often compelled by critical needs (e.g., access to sewage treatment facility or water), or by state fiat • Do they work? It depends….

  9. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES • VERY common: 90% of local governments contract for service with another governmental entity • E.g., towns of Saratoga, LA Hills rely on County for sheriff, fire, etc. • DISTINGUISHED from “contracting out” • Lakewood Plan in LA County – became the model in 1950’s • Advantages: economies of scale, regional coordination • Disadvantages: limited choices for cities, lack of accountability

  10. SPECIAL DISTRICTS • Districts formed to provide a specific service-- e.g., fire, transit, water, air quality, sewage, ports, parks, flood control, usually with taxing and policy-making authority • Very common • Disadvantages: • Often small and parochial, not regional • E.g., fire or parks districts within a city or two • When a district does address regional problems, it often does so only on piecemeal basis • E.g., 2010 BAAQMD ruling regarding in-fill development near freeways • Add layers of government/ fragmentation • Low levels of public accountability / transparency

  11. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD) • California Legislature created the Air District in 1955 • first regional air pollution control agency in the country • regulates stationary sources of air pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay • regional air basin shares common geographical features and weather patterns, and therefore similar air pollution burdens, which cannot be addressed by counties acting on their own.

  12. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS AND COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT (COGS) • Usually formed with shared elected officials to coordinate regional programs and land-use • COOPERATION AGREEMENTS: • Often through Joint Powers Agreement (e.g., Caltrain JPB) • COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT (COGS) • E.g., ABAG, MTC, BCDC • Problems: • Where one city, one vote: results in domination by suburban, anti-regional interests • Often lack “teeth” or taxing authority • Lack of accountability (see Caltrain article in Mercury) • Unpopular with voters wary of loss of “local control” • MULTIPURPOSE REGIONAL AGENCIES (Portland, Minneapolis)

  13. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS AND COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT (COGS) • Usually formed with shared elected officials to coordinate regional programs and land-sue • COOPERATION AGREEMENTS: • Often through Joint Powers Agreement (e.g., Caltrain JPB) • COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT (COGS) • E.g., ABAG, MTC, BCDC • CONSOLIDATED SPECIAL DISTRICTS (Portland, Minneapolis)

  14. ABAG Nine counties around SF Bay: Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Solano

  15. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) • the official comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region. • Mission: strengthen cooperation and coordination among local governments, addressing social, environmental, and economic issues that transcend local borders. • Bay Area= nine counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. • 101 cities and all nine counties = voluntary members of ABAG

  16. Metropolitan Transportation Commission • MTC: transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine-county Bay Area. • Distribute about $1 billion in transportation funding regionally Commission’s work is guided by a 19-member policy board, w/ 16 voting members: • 14 commissioners =appointed directly by local elected officials • two members represent regional agencies — the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

  17. The 27-member San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was created by the California Legislature in 1965 in response to broad public concern over the future of San Francisco Bay. • made up of appointees from local governments and state/federal agencies. • You probably need a BCDC permit if planning a project along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay

  18. Authorized by state legislature in 1957. • Supported by regional sales tax and fares. • Three counties: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa (San Mateo and Marin declined). • Approved by voters in 1962. • Construction began in 1964. • Opens in 1972. • Governed by an elected board. • BART/VTA agree to extend BART to Santa Clara County, 2001.

  19. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE • BAY AREA COUNCIL “The voice of business for the Bay Area.” • SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP 311 top Silicon Valley companies. • JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY

  20. ISSUES WITH REGIONAL AGENCIES • INVISIBILITY • INDIRECT REPRESENTATION • ACCOUNTABILITY (STAFF-DRIVEN) • COORDINATION • CORPORATE DOMINATION THROUGH UNELECTED ENTITIES – BAC, SVLG, JVSV

  21. POLITICS OF REGIONALGOVERNANCE • PRO: • Environmentalists • Downtown interests, esp. corporate • Large newspapers • Big-city politicians • “good government” reformers • CON: • Suburbanites • Minority groups

  22. A SOLUTION? • CONSOLIDATE SPECIAL DISTRICTS ABAG, MTC, BCDC, BAAQCD, BART • ELECT A BOARD OF DIRECTORS • INCREASE VISIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY WHO WOULD OPPOSE? WHO WOULD SUPPORT?

More Related